AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ
None appears for the petitioner on call.
On 03.12.2020, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the following order was passed:
"No representation for the petitioner.
List the matter on 17.12.2020."
On 17.12.2020 also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and this Court passed the following order:
"Today again, there is non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
The docket shows that on last date also, there was non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
List this case on 22.01.2021 with an indication that if there is again non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner, on the next date, the Court may presume that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law."
In terms of the said order, case is posted today and today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
Though petition is styled as public interest litigation, essentially, the petitioner, amongst others, questions the vires of sub-section 16A of Section 115D of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964.
Considering the matter in its entirety, we do not consider to continue with the present proceedings though the writ petition is styled as public interest litigation and, therefore, the writ petition is closed and disposed of.
As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications are closed.